Hilburn v. Murata Electronics North America, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that expert’s conclusory statements regarding the plaintiffs alleged limitations were unsupported by specific facts
• holding that the record-of-impairment standard is satisfied only if the plaintiff “actually suffered a physical impairment that substantially limited one or more of h[is] major life activities”
• noting that a “conclusory statement ia insufficient to create a genuine issue of a material fact”
• noting that a person is “disabled” for purposes of the ADA if he or she “satisfies any one of these three definitions”
• concluding defendant did not regard plaintiff as disabled for purposes of ADA where defendant’s recognition of plaintiff’s limitations was recognition of fact, rather than erroneous perception
• explaining that an allegation that a person has “heart disease,” without explaining specifically how the person’s heart disease substantially limits any of her major life activities, is insufficient

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).